CASE OF MAKHMUDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MAKHMUDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 22983/10 and 9 others – see list appended)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 March 2019

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision

In the case of Makhmudova and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 February 2019,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in ten applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

3. The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4. The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in the Chechen Republic. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown.

5. The applicants reported the abductions to law‑enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have been ongoing for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only formalistic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still ongoing.

6. Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of servicemen in the events.

A. Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10)

7. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ismail Makhmudov, who was born in 1976. The first applicant is his mother, the third applicant is his wife, the fourth applicant is his daughter, and the fifth and sixth applicants are his brothers. The second applicant was Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s father. He died on 12 July 2010.

1. Abduction of Mr Ismail Makhmudov and subsequent events

8. At about 7 p.m. on 4 January 2003 a grey UAZ minivan (tabletka) allegedly belonging to the Gudermes district department of the interior (“the Gudermes ROVD”) parked near the applicants’ house in Oiyskhar settlement, Chechnya. At 8 p.m. Mr Ismail Makhmudov left his house and when he was passing the minivan ten armed men in camouflage uniforms, some of them in balaclavas, jumped out of the minivan, surrounded him, forced him into the vehicle, and drove off to an unknown destination.

9. The applicants submitted written statements by three witnesses to the incident. Ms L.Ya saw a UAZ minivan parking some 300 metres from her house, and a group of men in camouflage uniforms speaking unaccented Russian nearby; Ms T.A. saw the abduction of Mr Ismail Makhmudov from her window; and Mr A.T. witnessed the UAZ minivan with the men in camouflage uniforms driving by in the direction of the highway.

10. On 5 January 2003 day the first applicant went to the Gudermes ROVD, where she met a police officer, Officer L.Kh., who told her that they had already taken Mr Ismail Makhmudov home.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

11. On 6 January 2003 the second applicant, Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s father, complained of the abduction to the Gudermes ROVD. Three days later the Gudermes ROVD refused to open a criminal case into the incident, stating that “there were no grounds to believe that [Mr Ismail Makhmudov] had been the victim of a criminal offence”.

12. On 21 January 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor in Chechnya overruled the above refusal and opened criminal case no. 32004 under Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction).

13. On 20 March 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

14. Having questioned several witnesses who did not have any information about Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s whereabouts, on 21 March 2003 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators.

15. On 1 March 2004 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the case file documents. On 18 March 2004 her request was refused.

16. On unspecified dates between April and June 2004 the first applicant contacted the Chechen Ministry of the Interior, the Chechen President and other authorities, seeking their assistance in the search for her son. She was informed in reply that the criminal proceedings were ongoing.

17. In early 2005 the first applicant sent similar requests to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) in Chechnya, the Chechnya prosecutor and the Chechen Ministry of the Interior. Her enquiries were forwarded to the investigators in charge of the case.

18. On 28 April 2005 the deputy Gudermes district prosecutor overruled the decision of 21 March 2003 and resumed the proceedings to question Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s neighbours and check if he had been apprehended during a special operation.

19. It appears that in May 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s neighbours. The copies of their interview records submitted by the Government were illegible.

20. On 28 May 2005 the proceedings were suspended. The applicants were not informed about that.

21. On 16 November 2005 the first applicant asked the Gudermes district prosecutor to inform her about the progress of the case and to investigate the abduction more thoroughly, alleging that it had been perpetrated by State agents. No response followed.

22. On 15 February 2006 the NGO Russian Justice Initiative contacted the investigators on behalf of the first applicant, seeking an update on the progress of the investigation. Again, no response followed.

23. On 7 April 2008 the proceedings were resumed. Several days later the investigators contacted various law-enforcement bodies and detention facilities to establish whether Mr Ismail Makhmudov had been placed in custody. The respondent authorities had no information about his arrest or detention.

24. On 15 May 2008 the first applicant was questioned. She provided the investigators with the names of several fellow villagers who had seen a grey UAZ minivan parked near her son’s house at the time of the abduction.

25. On 19 May 2008 the investigation was suspended again. Later, it was resumed on 15 December 2008, 30 January 2009 and 21 August 2012, and then suspended on 19 January and 12 March 2009 and 21 September 2012 respectively.

26. On 15 January 2009 the investigators granted victim status to the second applicant and questioned him. He made statements similar to those of his wife, the second applicant. He also mentioned that the former head of the local police, Mr U., had told him that at about 8 p.m. on 4 January 2003 he had seen a UAZ minivan and several persons in military uniforms and balaclavas near the applicants’ house. The men had stated that they had problems with electricity, but had refused to accept his help.

27. On 10 March 2009 the investigators questioned Mr Sh.B., who submitted that he had seen a grey UAZ minivan in the vicinity of Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s house.

28. On 4 February 2015 the first applicant enquired about the course of the proceedings. On 13 February 2015 she was informed that they were still ongoing. There is no information about further developments in the case.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

29. On 20 March 2010 the first applicant lodged a court claim with the Gudermes Town Court in Chechnya, seeking that the proceedings suspended on 19 May 2008 be resumed. She also alleged that the investigation had not been thorough.

30. On 8 June 2010 the court dismissed her claim on the grounds that the proceedings had already been resumed on 2 June 2010.

B. Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11)

31. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ismail Dashtayev, who was born in 1975. The second applicant is his sister.

1. Abduction of Mr Ismail Dashtayev

32. On 30 January 2002 Mr Ismail Dashtayev and his fellow villager Mr L.‑A.Ch. were going by taxi from the town of Nazran, Ingushetiya, to the village of Novyye Atagi, Chechnya. Just before the entrance to Novyye Atagi, they were stopped by servicemen who had blocked the road with two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”). The servicemen were in camouflage uniforms without identifying insignia, except for one, who had the shoulder straps of a colonel. Speaking unaccented Russian, they asked Mr Ismail Dashtayev and Mr L.‑A.Ch. for their identity documents. A few minutes later, two grey UAZ minivans without registration plates arrived. Suddenly, one of the servicemen pointed his gun at Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s head, while another searched his pockets. They then put Mr Ismail Dashtayev in one of the UAZ minivans and drove off towards the town of Shali. When Mr L.‑A.Ch. asked the servicemen where Mr Ismail Dashtayev had been taken, the servicemen shouted at him, asking whether he wanted to join him. Thereafter, the servicemen searched Mr L.-A.Ch., put a black plastic bag over his head, forced him into the other UAZ minivan, drove him to Shali, and then released him in front of the central district hospital.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

33. On 7 February 2002 the first applicant complained of the abduction of her son to the Shali district prosecutor in Chechnya.

34. On 31 May 2002 the district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 59116 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

35. On 1 July 2002 the investigators questioned the first applicant. She described her attempts to find her missing son. Firstly, she had contacted Mr L.-A.Ch.’s mother, who had told her that Mr Ismail Dashtayev had been apprehended together with Mr L.-A.Ch. Then she had spoken with the head of Novyye Atagi’s local authorities, who had stated that Mr Ismail Dashtayev had been detained on the premises of the Shali district department of the interior (“the Shali ROVD”).

36. The next day the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

37. On 31 July 2002, having sent requests concerning Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s whereabouts to various authorities, including the Shali ROVD, the investigators suspended the criminal proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators.

38. At some point later the authorities replied that they did not have any information about Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s whereabouts.

39. On 21 January 2003 the proceedings were resumed and then on 28 February 2003 suspended again.

40. On 5 March 2004 and 22 February 2008 the first applicant asked the head of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences and the Chechnya Ombudsman to assist her in her search for her son.

41. On 14 March 2008 the investigators resumed the proceedings.

42. On 28 March 2008 the investigators questioned Mr L.-A.Ch for the first time. His statement was similar to those submitted to the Court by the applicants.

43. On 19 April 2008 the investigation was suspended again. The applicants were not informed of that.

44. On 10 February 2010 the applicants’ representative contacted a number of domestic authorities, asking for their assistance in establishing the whereabouts of the applicants’ missing relative. In reply, he was informed that the criminal investigation into Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s abduction was ongoing.

45. On 20 January 2011 the investigation was resumed. Several days later the investigators questioned various officials who had assisted the investigation in establishing the circumstances of the abduction. All of them explained that they had failed to find out which authority had blocked the road and apprehended Mr Ismail Dashtayev.

46. On 14 February the investigators ordered a DNA test to be performed, to compare the DNA of the first applicant to that stored in a database of DNA from unidentified bodies. No matches were found.

47. On 21 February the investigation was suspended again. There is no information about further developments in the proceedings.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

48. On 27 December 2010 the applicants complained to the Shali Town Court of the decision of 19 April 2008 to suspend the proceedings and of the investigators’ failure to take all necessary investigative steps.

49. On 24 January 2011 the court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the investigation had already been resumed on 20 January 2011.

50. On 28 January 2011 the applicants appealed. They complained that the investigators’ failure to act in a timely manner had not been examined by the district court, and that the court hearing had been held in their absence.

51. On 6 April 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 24 January 2011 for technical reasons and then terminated the examination of the appeal.

C. Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11)

52. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Vakha Nauzov, who was born in 1974. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his wife, and the third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children.

1. Background events and the abduction of Mr Vakha Nauzov

53. On 6 June 2003 the Russian Parliament announced amnesty for illegal combatants involved in the armed conflict in Chechnya who voluntarily stopped their activities and surrendered their weapons.

54. At the beginning of June 2003 Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U.M. surrendered their weapons to the Gudermes department of the FSB and were pardoned. A few days later both men were hired by the security service of the Head of Administration of the Chechen President. They worked in the village of Novoe Gordali, Chechnya.

55. On 20 June 2003 Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U.M. drove to work in a silver-blue VAZ-2106 car with registration plate no. 173-05. At 11 a.m. they were stopped at checkpoint no. 75 on a highway near the village of Druzhba. Fellow villagers who were passing the checkpoint in a minibus at the time, including Ms A.E. and Ms D.Kh., saw that several servicemen had surrounded Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U.M., while others were searching their car. Some of the witnesses, whose identities the applicants did not disclose before the Court, heard Mr Vakha Nauzov shouting that his boss should be informed that they were being taken away.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

56. On 22 June and then again on 6 August 2003 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Gudermes prosecutor and the Gudermes ROVD in Chechnya. In the complaint to the prosecutor, the applicants alleged that Mr Vakha Nauzov had been apprehended at a checkpoint in the eastern part of Gudermes.

57. On an unspecified date police officers from the Gudermes ROVD questioned the servicemen who had been manning checkpoint no. 75. They denied arresting Mr Vakha Nauzov.

58. On 6 August 2003 the Gudermes ROVD refused to institute an investigation into the abduction, for lack of evidence of a criminal offence.

59. On 19 July 2004 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that the Gudermes ROVD had opened search case no. 063043 to establish their relative’s whereabouts.

60. On 15 July 2005 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office overruled the refusal to open a criminal case of 6 August 2003 and ordered the Gudermes ROVD to carry out further examination of the abduction complaint.

61. On 4 August 2005 the Gudermes ROVD again refused to open a criminal case. On 31 October the Gudermes prosecutor overruled the refusal and ordered the ROVD to examine the complaint once again.

62. On 31 November 2005 the Gudermes prosecutor opened criminal case no. 45129 under Article 105 of the CC (murder) in respect of the abduction of Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U.M.

63. On 31 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

64. On 18 September 2007 the first applicant asked the investigators to provide her with a copy of their decision to grant her victim status. It appears that no response followed.

65. On 24 October 2007 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings and grant her victim status.

66. On 19 November 2007 the proceedings were resumed and on 13 December 2007 the first applicant was granted victim status. Six days later the proceedings were suspended again.

67. On 2 July 2008 and 13 April 2009 the applicants contacted the Chechen President and the head of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons respectively, asking for their assistance in the search for their missing relative. Their requests were forwarded to the investigating authorities, which informed the applicants that the criminal proceedings were still ongoing.

68. On 21 April 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status. The next day her request was granted. It appears that the investigation was not formally resumed at that time.

69. On 12 January 2011 the first applicant asked the Chechen prosecutor to establish her son’s whereabouts and find the culprits. On 31 January 2011 she was informed that her request had been forwarded to the Gudermes prosecutor.

70. On 14 February 2011 the first applicant asked to be updated on the progress of the investigation and to be allowed to access the criminal case file. Four days later she was given access to a few documents from the file.

71. On 11 June 2011 the first applicant again requested access to the case file. On 30 June 2011 the investigators dismissed the request on the grounds that the same request had already been granted.

72. Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 31 October 2011 and on 6 July 2012, and then suspended on 30 November 2011 and 6 August 2012 respectively. No tangible results have been achieved in the meantime. There is no information about further developments in the case.

D. Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11)

73. The first applicant was the mother of Mr Supyan (also spelled as Supiyan) Mukayev, who was born in 1982. She died on 30 November 2013. The second applicant is the father of Mr Supyan Mukayev. The third applicant is the latter’s brother.

1. Abduction of Mr Supyan Mukayev and subsequent events

74. At about 3 p.m. on 15 March 2005 Mr Supyan Mukayev and his acquaintance Mr M.Kh. were standing on Groznenskaya Street, across from the Bass petrol station in the village of Shali, when a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms approached them and ordered them to put their hands up. They then forced Mr Supyan Mukayevwas and Mr M.Kh into two separate vehicles, a VAZ-2199 car and a UAZ minivan, parked nearby and drove them off in the direction of Grozny, passing freely through military checkpoints on their way. The abduction was witnessed by several persons.

75. Shortly thereafter the street was cordoned off by the Vostok-2 battalion of the Russian Defence Ministry. Military vehicles such as APCs and UAZs patrolled the town, while servicemen searched the premises of the local telecommunication agency.

76. The first applicant, together with other town residents, approached the Shali military commander and asked him for an explanation as to what had happened to Mr Supyan Mukayev and Mr M.Kh. In reply, the officer told her that her son was an informant for illegal armed groups operating in Chechnya.

77. On the next day, 16 March 2005, the servicemen took Mr M.Kh. to the town of Gudermes and released him there.

78. At some point after the abduction, the first applicant went to the Shali local administration and spoke to its deputy head, who told her that her son had been arrested by servicemen from the Vostok-2 battalion and had then been detained in Gudermes.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

79. Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities of what had happened and requested that a criminal case be opened.

80. On 7 July 2005 the Shali district prosecutor in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 46073 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

81. On the same day the prosecutor contacted various law-enforcement authorities in order to check if Mr Supyan Mukayev had been arrested and placed in custody. The respondent authorities stated that they had no information in that regard.

82. The next day, 8 July 2005, the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. Subsequently, the second applicant was granted victim status on 27 April 2011.

83. On an unspecified date in September 2005 the investigators obtained a copy of a report of 16 March 2005 prepared by the Shali district military commander and addressed to the Chechnya military commander. According to that document, there had been activity aimed at cordoning off the local telecommunication agency in Shali on 15 March 2005. During that operation two village residents, Mr Supyan Mukayev and Mr M.Kh had been arrested. Mr Supyan Mukayev had been arrested on suspicion of having been a messenger for Mr P.Ch. After that, servicemen of the Vostok battalion had taken him in the direction of Mesker-Yurt village. Another village resident, Mr M.Kh., had been released following an inquiry.

84. On 13 September 2005 the investigators questioned Mr M.Kh. He explained that he had been apprehended in Shali and released a day later in Gudermes. He had been blindfolded and therefore unable to see the abductors or the place where he had been detained. During subsequent questioning, on 2 February 2007 he stated that the perpetrators had been State agents.

85. On 7 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 15 March and 17 July 2006, 16 January and 14 March 2007, 25 April 2011, and 9 July 2012, and then suspended on 15 April and 27 August 2006, 27 February and 15 April 2007, and 9 August 2012 respectively.

86. In the meantime, on 10 April 2006 the investigators had questioned the deputy head of the Shali local administration. He confirmed that he had spoken with the first applicant about Mr Supyan Mukayev’s abduction, but denied making any references to the Vostok-2 battalion. According to him, at that time he had had only some unverified information that Mr Supyan Mukayev had been apprehended by servicemen.

87. In February 2007 the investigators questioned several persons who worked at the Bass petrol station and had witnessed the abduction. Their statements were similar to the applicants’ account of the events.

88. On 14 January 2009 the first applicant asked the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons to assist in the search for her son. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 1 June 2009 that the proceedings had been suspended, but the search was still under way.

89. In May or June 2011 the investigators obtained a DNA sample from the second applicant and then compared it to those stored in the database of DNA from unidentified bodies. No matches were found.

90. There is no information about further developments in the proceedings.

E. Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11)

91. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rustam Gaysumov, who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his wife and the fourth and fifth applicants are his children. The sixth and seventh applicants are the parents of Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, who was born in 1980.

1. Abduction of Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov

92. On 8 November 2006 the police conducted a special operation in Druzhby Narodov Square in Grozny. The area was intensively patrolled by a large number of armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms.

93. On the same date, in the morning, Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, both of whom were former members of illegal armed groups in Chechnya, went to Grozny on business. At about 1 p.m. the police stopped their car for an identity check in Druzhby Narodov Square, then arrested them and took them away to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses.

94. The applicants submitted written statements from Ms M.E., who worked at a kiosk located in Druzhby Narodov Square, and Ms Sh.N. Both were eyewitnesses to the abduction. Ms M.E. submitted that on 8 November 2006 she had seen servicemen in uniforms and balaclavas armed with automatic weapons. They had conducted a special operation. At around 2 p.m. they had stopped a car with two persons, allegedly Mr Rustam Gaysumov and Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov. Shortly thereafter, one of them had gone to Ms M.E.’s kiosk to buy a blank authorisation form for driving a car and had told her that he was from the Achkhoy-Martan District. Then he had returned to his car. Immediately after that the servicemen had forced Mr Gaysumov and Mr Elderkhanov into a Niva car and driven off. Ms Sh.N. gave a similar statement. She added that there had been forty to fifty servicemen in the square and the Niva car had been followed by two to three UAZ vehicles.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

95. On 10 November 2006 some of the applicants informed the Leninskiy district prosecutor in Grozny of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relatives. Between November and January 2007 the applicants forwarded similar requests to a number of other law-enforcement agencies.

96. The Zavodskoy district prosecutor in Grozny carried out a preliminary inquiry into the incident. In particular, he obtained “operative information” that Mr Gaysumov and Mr Elderkhanov had been apprehended by “unidentified staff members of the Chechen law‑enforcement agencies” and had been released later. Apparently, keeping this in mind, on 28 December 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case.

97. It appears that at some point later that decision was overruled and on 27 January 2007 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 11006 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

98. On 31 January and 3 March 2007 the first and seventh applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

99. On 13 March 2007 the investigators questioned Ms M.E., the lady who worked at the kiosk in Druzhby Narodov Square. She stated that on 8 November 2006 when servicemen had been conducting a special operation in the square, one of them had come to her kiosk to buy a blank authorisation form for driving a car. She had had a limited view from the kiosk’s window, and therefore could not see what had happened thereafter. According to the applicants, Ms M.E. was afraid to tell the investigators about the abduction she had witnessed.

100. On 27 March 2007 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

101. On 26 June 2007 the proceedings were resumed and on 17 August 2007 suspended again.

102. In 2008 the applicants contacted various authorities, including the Chechen Government and the Chechen President, seeking their assistance in the search for their missing relatives. Their enquiries were forwarded to the investigators, who informed them that the proceedings had been suspended.

103. On 22 November 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings and questioned relatives of Mr Gaysumov and Mr Elderkhanov.

104. On 2 December 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators about progress and applied for victim status in the proceedings. Ten days later he was informed that on 12 December 2010 the proceedings had been suspended.

105. On 3 March 2011 the seventh applicant also requested information about the investigation’s progress and access to the case file. The outcome of that request is unknown.

106. Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 17 May and 16 November 2011 and 28 February 2014, and were then suspended on 6 June and 21 December 2011 and 19 March 2014 respectively. There is no information about further developments in the proceedings.

F. Satuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 7214/12)

107. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, who was born in 1975. The first, third and fourth applicants are his siblings and the second applicant is his mother.

1. Abduction of Mr Alikhan Satuyev and subsequent events

108. At 4 a.m. on 14 June 2003 twelve to fifteen armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms arrived in a white Niva car and armoured UAZ vehicles without registration plates at Mr Alikhan Satuyev’s flat in Grozny. Some of them surrounded the block of flats, while others broke into the flat, handcuffed Mr Satuyev and took him away to an unknown location.

109. Mr S. Kham., the uncle of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, who was working as a judge at the time, found out that Alikhan Satuyev had been taken to the Oktyabrskiy temporary district department of the interior (“the Oktyabrskiy VOVD”) by the head of its criminal search department. In a private conversation with the latter, he was told that Alikhan Stauyev had been released on the same day, shortly after his arrest.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

110. On 14 June 2003 the wife of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, Ms L.U., complained of the abduction to the Zavodskoy district department of the interior in Grozny (“the ROVD”). On the same day the investigators questioned Mr A.D., Mr Satuyev’s neighbour. His submission was similar to those made by the applicants before the Court. Two days later, Ms L.U.’s abduction complaint was forwarded to the Zavodskoy district prosecutor. On 24 June 2003 the latter opened criminal case no. 30097 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

111. On 2 July 2003 the investigators questioned Mr M.B., who stated that on the night of 12-13 June 2003 police officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD had apprehended him and taken him to the police station, where they had asked him about Mr Alikhan Satuyev. The police officers had then taken him to the centre of Grozny, where he had shown them where Mr Satuyev’s flat was located.

112. Later in July 2003 the investigators questioned several officials from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. The copies of their statements as submitted by the Government were illegible. As far as could be seen from one of them, Mr A.T., the head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, spoke with Mr Satuyev’s uncle, Judge S. Kham., and then with Officer N.S. following the judge’s enquiry into the fate of his nephew. The officer informed him that Mr Satuyev had been arrested and apparently released afterwards.

113. In the period August-September 2003 the investigators attempted to question Officer N.S., but failed to locate him.

114. On 24 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

115. On 22 January 2004 the proceedings were resumed. By 20 February 2004 the investigators had obtained the names or nicknames of five officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD who had allegedly been involved in the events of 14 June 2003. They asked the Oktyabrskiy VOVD to inform them about the officers’ whereabouts.

116. On 28 February 2004 the investigators initiated the search for Officer N.S. and suspended the criminal proceedings into the abduction.

117. On 26 March 2004 the proceedings were resumed.

118. On 28 April 2004 the Oktyabrskiy VOVD informed the investigators that certain persons from the list of alleged perpetrators had left the police owing to the expiration of their employment contracts. The Oktyabrskiy VOVD did not have information about the identity of the officers whose nicknames had been specified by the investigators in their request.

119. On 14 April 2004 the investigators questioned Officer M.A., who confirmed that on 14 June 2003 he had participated in a special operation under Officer N.S.’s command. In particular, he had cordoned off the area near a block of flats where the arrested person had lived. Officer M.A. did not know that person’s name.

120. On 26 May 2004 the investigators suspended the proceedings.

121. On 26 January 2005 the above decision was overruled by the Chechnya deputy prosecutor, who ordered that the proceedings be resumed.

122. On 16 February 2005 Ms L.U. was granted victim status in the proceedings.

123. On 8 March 2005 the proceedings were suspended. They were subsequently resumed on 10 January 2006, 20 April 2007, 20 September 2011, and then suspended on 14 January and 23 May 2007 and 20 October 2011 respectively. In the meantime, the applicants contacted various authorities, seeking their assistance in the search for their missing relative.

124. On 15 May 2009 the second applicant enquired about the progress of the investigation. On 15 May 2009 the investigators replied to her, stating that the proceedings had been suspended, but operative search measures were ongoing.

125. On 5 October 2011 the second applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. There is no information about further progress in the case.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

126. On 12 August 2011 the second applicant complained to the Zavodskoy District Court in Grozny about the investigators’ decision to suspend the criminal proceedings. On 20 September 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, as the investigation had already been resumed.

4. Civil proceedings

127. On 8 January 2013 the second applicant lodged a civil claim with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny, seeking compensation in the amount of 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB – approximately 75,100 euros (EUR)) for non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of her son.

128. On 21 March 2013 the Leninskiy District Court granted the claim in part, awarding the second applicant RUB 500,000 (approximately EUR 12,500).

129. On 2 July 2003 the Chechen Supreme Court quashed the above judgment on appeal and dismissed the second applicant’s claim in full, on the grounds of lack of evidence of State agents’ involvement in the abduction.

G. Abubakarova and Others v. Russia (no. 46621/12)

130. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Vakhab Abubakarov, who was born in 1957. The second and third applicants are his children.

1. Abduction of Mr Vakhab Abubakarov

131. At about 4 a.m. on 26 November 2002 several servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ house in Argun, Chechnya. Speaking unaccented Russian, they asked the members of the applicants’ family to show their identity documents. They then searched the house, took Mr Vakhab Abubakarov outside, and locked the applicants in the house. The applicants’ neighbours heard an APC moving around in the vicinity of their house.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

132. On 26 November 2002 the first applicant complained to the local police of Vakhab Abubakarov’s abduction.

133. On 28 November 2002 the Argun prosecutor opened criminal case no. 78101 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

134. In November 2002 the investigators contacted various civilian and military authorities to check if Mr Vakhab Abubakarov had been apprehended in the course of a special operation and placed in custody. The respondent authorities had no information about his arrest or detention.

135. On 4 December 2002 the investigators questioned the members of Mr Abubakarov’s family who had been in the house at the time of his abduction. Their statements were similar to those which they made before the Court. On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

136. On 28 January 2003 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators.

137. On 4 September 2004 the proceedings were resumed. Two days later the investigators examined the crime scene.

138. On 4 October 2004 they suspended the proceedings again.

139. On 22 November 2004 the Shali Town Court declared Mr Vakhab Abubakarov a missing person.

140. On 4 May 2006 the NGO Memorial enquired about progress in the proceedings on the first applicant’s behalf. By a letter dated 2 June 2006, they were informed that the proceedings had been suspended, but operative search measures were being implemented.

141. On an unspecified date in early 2009 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow her to access the case file. On 6 March 2009 the request was granted.

142. On 25 May 2009 the first applicant contacted the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons, seeking its assistance in the search for her husband. Her request was then forwarded to the investigators, who informed her on 21 June 2009 that the criminal proceedings into the events of 26 November 2002 had been suspended.

143. On 5 March 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be granted access to the investigation file. On an unspecified date the investigators replied that the case file had been sent to the Investigative Committee for examination.

144. On 28 June 2010 the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently suspended on 28 July 2010, then resumed again on 18 August 2010, and suspended one more time on 18 September 2010.

145. On various dates in July 2010 the investigators questioned several neighbours of the applicants who had heard about the abduction, but had not witnessed it. On 23 July 2010 the investigators obtained a DNA sample from the first applicant. They compared it to the ones in the database of DNA from unidentified bodies, but did not find any matches.

146. In late 2010 the NGO Materi Chechni asked a member of the Russian Parliament to assist in search for Mr Abubakarov. The first applicant’s inquiry was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 3 November 2010 that the proceedings had been suspended on 18 September 2010.

147. There is no information about further progress in the investigation.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

148. On 10 June 2010 the applicants complained to the Shali District Court of the investigators’ failure to investigate the case thoroughly and about their decision to suspend the proceedings on 4 October 2004.

149. On 29 June 2010 the applicants’ complaint was dismissed on account of the investigation being resumed on 28 June 2010.

150. The applicants appealed, but to no avail. The Chechen Supreme Court dismissed their appeal on 15 September 2010.

H. Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12)

151. The applicant is the mother of Mr Lema (also known as Lom-Ali and also spelled as Lyoma in the documents submitted) Magomadov, who was born in 1981.

1. Abduction of Mr Lema Magomadov

152. On the night of 13-14 November 2002 the applicant and her son, Mr Magomadov, were at home in Grozny when about a hundred armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the entrance of their house. They had automatic weapons, helmets and portable radio sets. Shortly thereafter a group of the intruders forced the door and broke into the house. Having searched its premises, they beat Mr Magomadov and then dragged him away, barefoot and undressed. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the neighbours.

153. On the morning of 14 November 2002 the applicant’s neighbours examined the area. Along with numerous shoeprints left on the ground, they found prints left by bare feet, presumably those of Mr Magomadov, who had been taken away on foot. Having followed the trail, the neighbours arrived at a checkpoint, where they discovered tyre tracks left by an APC. The neighbours learnt from officers who had been manning the checkpoint on the night of the abduction that an APC had indeed parked at the checkpoint during the night, and at some point a group of military servicemen had arrived with a young man, barefoot and undressed, had put him into the APC and had driven off.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

154. On 14 November 2002 the applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested their assistance in the search for her son.

155. The next day the Grozny town prosecutor opened criminal case no. 48212 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

156. On the same day, 15 November 2002, the investigators examined the crime scene at the applicant’s house. No evidence was collected.

157. On 7 January 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. Her statement was similar to the account of the events submitted to the Court.

158. On 15 January 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was then resumed on 26 May 2004 to question the applicant’s neighbours and “intensify operative search measures”.

159. In early June 2004 the investigators questioned several neighbours who had not seen the abduction, but had heard about it from the applicant and other village residents.

160. On 25 June 2004 the investigation was suspended.

161. On 16 and 25 June 2005, 15 September 2008 and 20 April 2009 the applicant contacted the Grozny town prosecutor, the Chechen Parliament, the Russian Investigative Committee and the head of the Chechen Parliament, seeking their assistance in the search for her son. The authorities forwarded her letters to the investigators, who informed her by letters of 18 August 2005, 14 October 2008 and 23 May 2009 that the proceedings had been suspended, but operative search measures were being implemented.

162. Between May and June 2004 and again in July 2007 the investigators asked a number of authorities to provide them with any information about Mr Magomadov’s whereabouts. They also enquired whether a special operation had been conducted in Grozny on the night of his abduction. No reply in the affirmative followed.

163. On 4 June 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings. Several days later they questioned the applicant again. She confirmed her previous statement. A month later, on 4 July 2010 the proceedings were suspended.

164. On 27 August 2011 the applicant asked the investigators about developments in the case and asked them to allow her to access the case file documents. On 15 September 2011 her application was granted. She was also informed that the proceedings had been suspended, but operative search measures were being implemented.

165. There is no information about further developments in the case.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

166. On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny of the investigators’ failure to take basic steps to find her son.

167. On 11 February 2010 the court dismissed her complaint as ill‑founded.

I. Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12)

168. The applicant is the mother of Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev, who was born in 1980.

1. Abduction of Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev

169. At the material time, Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev was staying in Grozny on business. He was residing in a flat belonging to his acquaintances, Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev.

170. At about 4 or 5 a.m. on 13 February 2003 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the Yansuyevs’ block of flats in two APCs, apprehended Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev, Mr Ilyas Yansuyev and Mr Isa Yansuyev, and drove them off to an unknown destination.

171. The circumstances of the abduction are described in detail in the application lodged by relatives of the Yansuyev brothers: Sasita Israilova and Others v. Russia, no. 35079/04, §§ 9-15, 28 October 2010.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

172. On 13 February 2003 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Leninskiy District military commander. The family of Mr Ilyas Yansuyev and Mr Isa Yansuyev joined the complaint.

173. The next day investigators from the Leninskiy district department of the interior examined the crime scene. They found a bloodstain and collected a sample from it.

174. On 17 May 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor opened criminal case no. 20039 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

175. The course of the investigation, from its beginning until 14 April 2009, is described in Sasita Israilova, cited above, §§ 20-78.

176. On 14 April 2009 the criminal proceedings were resumed. On various dates in April and May the investigators questioned relatives of the abducted persons and their neighbours, all of whom repeated their statements which they had given to the investigators before. On 18 May 2009 an expert examined the blood sample collected on 14 February 2003 and concluded that it had rotted owing to the wrong packaging being used and was not usable. Three days later the proceedings were suspended.

177. On 22 February 2012 the NGO Materi Chechni contacted the head of the Chechen Parliament’s committee for the search for missing persons on the applicant’s behalf, seeking assistance in the search for Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev. The head of the committee asked the investigators to inform him about the course of the proceedings. On 14 April 2012 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been stayed, but operative search activity was under way.

178. On 5 April 2012 the applicant asked the investigators to inform her of the progress made and to allow her to access the case file. On 17 April 2012 the request was granted.

179. On 17 July 2014 the investigators resumed the proceedings and five days later obtained the applicant’s DNA sample to compare it to the ones in the database of DNA from unidentified bodies. No matches were found.

180. On 6 August 2014 the proceedings were suspended again. There is no information about further developments.

J. Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia (no. 23115/13)

181. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Islam Asukhanov, who was born in 1968. The second, third and fourth applicants are his children.

1. Abduction of Mr Islam Asukhanov

182. At about 3 a.m. on 30 May 2003 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in the village of Goyty, Chechnya, searched it, and took Mr Islam Asukhanov to an unknown destination.

2. Official investigation into the abduction

183. On 30 May 2003 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Urus‑Martan district department of the interior (“the Urus‑Martan ROVD”). On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene and collected some fingerprints.

184. The next day the first applicant lodged an abduction complaint with the Chechnya prosecutor. She stated that Mr Islam Asukhanov had been abducted by a group of fifteen persons in camouflage uniforms. Some of them had cordoned off the house, while others had climbed over the fence and entered the premises. They had forced her husband into a white VAZ car and driven off to an unknown destination. After the abduction she had contacted servicemen who were manning the checkpoint at the entrance of Goyty. The servicemen had told her that two APCs and two cars had driven into Goyty at around 2 a.m. and had left the village thirty minutes later. They had headed to the village of Atagy.

185. On an unspecified date the first applicant’s complaints were forwarded to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor. On 6 June 2003 the latter sent several requests to law-enforcement authorities, military authorities and the FSB in the Urus-Martan district to check if Mr Islam Asukhanov had been apprehended during a special operation. The replies received were all in the negative.

186. On 14 June 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 34064 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

187. On 14 August 2003 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators.

188. On 13 June 2006 the above decision was overruled as premature and the proceedings were resumed.

189. On 10 July 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Ms R.U. She stated that on the night of 30 May 2003 she had seen a white VAZ vehicle on the street. The next morning the first applicant had told her that her husband, Mr Islam Asukhanov, had been abducted.

190. On 12 July 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She stated, among other things, that the abductors had spoken unaccented Russian and had been armed with automatic weapons.

191. The next day the investigation was suspended.

192. On 5 August 2009 the first applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be allowed to access the case file. Six days later she was allowed to access some of the case file documents. The remainder of her request was dismissed.

193. On 23 June 2011 the first applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings and question several witnesses to the abduction.

194. On 27 June 2011 the investigators resumed the proceedings to question the witnesses mentioned by the first applicant. However, the investigators questioned none of them and on 1 July 2011 they suspended the proceedings again.

195. On 13 April 2012 the first applicant asked the investigators to provide an update about new developments in the proceedings. On 24 April 2012 she was informed that the proceedings in the case had been suspended.

196. Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 12 June and 18 September 2012, 30 May and 1 August 2014, and then suspended on 22 June and 28 September 2012, 6 July 2014 and 7 August 2014 respectively.

197. On 20 June 2014 the investigators questioned several neighbours of the applicants, none of whom had seen the abduction, but had heard about it from the applicant.

198. There is no information about further developments in the proceedings.

3. Proceedings against the investigators

199. On 16 September 2010 the first applicant complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court, challenging the investigators’ refusal of 5 August 2009 to provide her with access to the entire case file and resume the proceedings. The complaint was allowed on 27 September 2010.

200. In June 2012, in two separate sets of proceedings, the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decisions of 1 July 2011 and 22 June 2012 to suspend the investigation before the Urus‑Martan Town Court.

201. On 15 June and 21 September 2012 respectively the court dismissed the challenges on the grounds that the proceedings had already been resumed.

202. On 28 September 2012 the first applicant appealed to the Chechnya Supreme Court against the second decision, and on 17 October 2012 the court upheld it.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL

203. For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

204. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background.

II. VICTIM STATUS

205. In Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11), the Government claimed that the fourth and fifth applicants, two sons of Mr Rustam Gaysumov, did not have victim status in the proceedings before the Court, owing to the fact that they were minors and the fifth applicant had been born after the alleged abduction of his father.

206. In a number of cases concerning abductions perpetrated in Chechnya and raising issues under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention which are similar to those in the case at hand, the Court has acknowledged the victim status of the next of kin of abducted persons, including minor children (see, among many other authorities, Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 3340/08 and 24689/10, §§ 91 and 99, 22 November 2016; Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 439, 449, 460, and 468, 9 October 2014; and Petimat Ismailova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25088/11 and 11 others, §§ 393 and 397, 18 September 2014). There is no reason to hold otherwise in the present case. The Court therefore rejects the Government’s argument that the fourth and fifth applicants cannot be considered victims of the violations alleged.

III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE

A. The parties’ submissions

1. The Government

207. In their observations, the Government argued that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abductions of their relatives, and more than six months after the date when they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigations, or more than six months after the most recent decision of the investigators. In particular, in Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11) and Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12), the applicants had provided their representatives with powers of attorney prior to lodging their applications with the Court. In the Government’s opinion, the gap between those events showed that the applicants must have realised that the domestic investigation was ineffective long before the initiation of the proceedings before the Court. The Government also pointed out that the applicants in all of the applications had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for a significant amount of time. According to the Government, all the applications should be declared inadmissible as brought “out of time”.

2. The applicants

208. The applicants submitted that they had complied with the six‑month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time-limit to initiate the searches for their missing relatives and assist the authorities in the proceedings. They submitted that there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been brought as soon as they had considered the domestic investigations to be ineffective. According to them, the armed conflict which had been taking place in Chechnya at the material time had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable. Owing to their lack of legal knowledge and financial means to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of any domestic provisions for free legal assistance for victims of enforced disappearances, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the investigations. It was only with the passage of time and a lack of information from the investigating authorities that they began to doubt the effectiveness of the investigations and had started looking for free legal assistance to assess the effectiveness of the proceedings and then, subsequently, to lodge their applications with the Court without undue delay.

B. The Court’s assessment

1. General principles

209. A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six‑month rule in disappearance cases may be found in Sultygov and Others, cited above, §§ 369‑74, 9 October 2014.

2. Application of the principles to the present cases

210. Turning to the circumstances of the cases, the Court notes that in each application the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within less than ten years of the incidents and the initiation of the related investigations (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009).

211. The Court further notes that in each application, save for Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11), the applicants informed the authorities about the abductions of their relatives within two days of the incidents (see paragraphs 11, 56, 79, 95, 110, 132, 154, 172 and 183 above). In Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11), they did so within eight days, which does not seem unreasonable or something which would seriously damage the prospects of the ensuing investigation (see paragraph 33 above).

212. The Court further observes that in each of the applications the authorities opened a criminal investigation into the applicants’ complaints of abduction which was repeatedly suspended and then resumed following criticism from the investigators’ superiors. In each case, the investigation was still ongoing when the application was lodged with the Court (see paragraph 5 above).

213. The Court also notes certain lulls in the criminal proceedings. Despite those lulls comprising several years (see in Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) paragraphs 160 and 163 above; in Abubakarova and Others v. Russia (no. 46621/12) paragraphs 138 and 144 above; in Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11) see paragraphs 39 and 41 above; in Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia (no. 23115/13) see paragraphs 191 and 193 above; in Satuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 7214/12) see paragraph 123 above, in Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11) see paragraph 85 above; in Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11) see paragraph 66 above and the appended table; in Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12) see paragraph 176 above and the appended table; in Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11) see paragraphs 101 and 103 above; and in Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10) see paragraphs 20 and 23 above) in each of the cases the applicants did not remain passive during those periods of inactivity on the part of the investigators. They contacted them to obtain information about new developments in the investigations and/or to have the dormant proceedings resumed. They also sought assistance in the searches from other State bodies (see paragraphs 21, 22, 40, 67-71, 88, 102, 124, 140-143, 161-162, 177 and 192 above). Overall, they clearly demonstrated their interest in the searches for their missing relatives.

214. In assessing the circumstances of the cases, the Court takes into account that all of the applications were lodged within ten years of the incidents, and that the authorities became aware of the abductions without there being undue delays. It also notes the applicants’ efforts to have the dormant proceedings resumed and their overall active stance in the proceedings. Therefore, it concludes that the applicants acted diligently and maintained contact with the investigators.

215. Given the fact that the investigations were complex and concerned very serious allegations, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for the applicants to wait for developments that could have resolved crucial factual or legal issues (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 142, ECHR 2012). The delays in opening the criminal cases, or the lulls in the proceedings, therefore cannot be interpreted as the applicants’ failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).

216. In the light of the above, and bearing in mind the arguments submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that the investigations in the cases at hand, albeit sporadic, were being conducted during the periods in question, and that it is satisfied with the explanations submitted by the applicants (see Varnava and Others, cited above, § 166). Accordingly, they complied with the six-month rule.

IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXHAUSTION RULE

A. The parties’ submissions

1. Government

217. The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions of the investigating authorities, and to raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigations, but the applicants in Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10), Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11), Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11) and Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11) had failed to do so. Accordingly, they had not exhausted domestic remedies.

2. The applicants

218. The applicants stated that lodging complaints against the investigators would not have remedied the shortcomings in the proceedings, and that criminal investigations had proved to be ineffective.

B. The Court’s assessment

219. The Court has already concluded that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that occurred in Chechnya between 2000 and 2006 constitutes a systemic problem, and that criminal investigations are not an effective remedy in this regard (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 217).

220. In such circumstances, and noting the absence of tangible progress in any of the criminal investigations into the abductions of the applicants’ relatives, the Court concludes that this objection must be dismissed, since the remedy relied on by the Government is not effective in the circumstances (for similar reasoning, see Ortsuyeva and Others, cited above, § 79).

V. ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. The parties’ submissions

1. The Government

221. The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that the applicants’ allegations were based on assumptions, as there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions, or that the applicants’ relatives were dead.

2. The applicants

222. The applicants submitted that it had been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the men who had taken their relatives had been State agents. In support of that assertion, they referred to evidence contained in their submissions and documents from the criminal investigation files disclosed by the Government. They also submitted that they had each made out a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by State agents, and the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. Given the lack of any news about their relatives for a long time and the life‑threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead.

B. The Court’s assessment

1. General principles

223. A summary of the principles concerning the assessment of evidence and the establishment of facts in disappearance cases, and the life‑threatening nature of such incidents, may be found in Sultygov and Others (cited above, §§ 393‑96).

2. Application of the above principles to the present cases

224. Turning to the circumstances of the cases presently before it, and in view of all the material, including the copies of the documents from the relevant criminal case files as submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the applicants have presented prima facie cases that their relatives were abducted by State agents in the circumstances set out above. The Court notes that each of the abductions took place in areas under State control.

225. In Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11) the applicants’ relative was apprehended at a checkpoint (see paragraph 55 above).

226. In Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11), Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11) and Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11) the applicants’ relatives were abducted from various public places by men in camouflage uniforms in UAZ military vehicles. In Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11) the abductors spoke unaccented Russian and used an APC. One of them had the shoulder straps of a colonel (see paragraph 32 above). In Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11) the abductors’ vehicle passed freely through a military checkpoint and the deputy of the Shali local administration confirmed the involvement of military servicemen. Moreover, the report from the Shali district commander stated that Mr Supyan Mukayev had been arrested and taken into custody by the Vostok battalion (see paragraphs 74, 76, 78 and 83 above). In Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11) the applicants’ relative was apprehended in the square patrolled by a large number of servicemen. Moreover, according to “operative information” obtained by the investigators, he was arrested by members of the Chechen law‑enforcement agencies (see paragraphs 93 and 96 above).

227. In the rest of the cases the applicants’ relatives were detained at their places of residence by persons in camouflage uniforms. In Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10), Abubakarova and Others v. Russia (no. 46621/12) and Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia (no. 23115/13) the perpetrators spoke unaccented Russian. In Abubakarova and Others v. Russia (no. 46621/12), Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12), Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12), Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia (no. 23115/13) and Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) they arrived in APCs. In Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10) and Satuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 7214/12) they used UAZ vehicles. Moreover, in Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10), Satuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 7214/12), Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) and Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia (no. 23115/13) various State officials told the applicants that their relatives had been apprehended by State agents (see paragraphs 8-10, 108, 109, 112, 131, 152-153, 170 and 171 above), and the applicants subsequently informed the authorities of this.

228. The Court notes that in the cases at hand, the investigating authorities accepted as fact the primary versions of events presented by the applicants, and took steps to verify whether State agents had indeed been involved by sending information requests to the relevant authorities.

229. In their submissions to the Court, the Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.

230. Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the circumstances of the cases and the Court’s finding in Sasita Israilova and Others v. Russia (no. 35079/04, § 104, 28 October 2010), the Court finds that the applicants’ relatives were taken into custody by State agents during special operations. Given the lack of any news about Mr Ismail Makhmudov, Mr Ismail Dashtayev, Mr Vakha Nauzov, Mr Supyan Mukayev, Mr Rustam Gaysumov, Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, Mr Alikhan Satuyev, Mr Vakhab Abubakarov, Mr Lema Magomadov, Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev and Mr Islam Asukhanov since their detention, and the life‑threatening nature of such detention, they may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention.

VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

231. The applicants complained, under Article 2 of the Convention, that their relatives had disappeared after being detained by State agents, and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into the matter. Article 2 reads as follows:

“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law...”

A. The parties’ submissions

232. In all of the cases, save for Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11) and Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11), the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants’ complaints of abductions, which had to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention because there was no evidence of the applicants’ relatives’ deaths. To this end, they referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, §§ 101‑09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑III). In Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11), they pointed out that Mr L-A., a village resident who had been apprehended with the applicants’ relative, had not been killed after his arrest.

233. In Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11), Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11), Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) and Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12), the Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints should be dismissed because they had failed to substantiate their allegations of enforced disappearances perpetrated by State servicemen. Further, the Government submitted that the domestic investigations had obtained no evidence that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control, or that they had been killed.

234. In Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10), Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11), Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11), Satuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 7214/12), Abubakarova and Others v. Russia (no. 46621/12) and Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia (no. 23115/13), the Government submitted that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had given only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective. The Government claimed that all necessary steps had been taken to comply with the positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.

235. The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances that violated Article 2 of the Convention. They further argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set out in the Convention and national legislation. Lastly, the applicant in Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) noted the Government’s failure to provide the Court with an entire copy of the investigation file.

B. The Court’s assessment

1. Admissibility

236. In the light of the parties’ submissions, the Court considers that the complaints raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The complaints under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) Alleged violation of the right to life of the applicants’ relatives

237. The Court observes that it is undisputed by the parties that the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives remained unaccounted for from the time of their abduction to the lodging of the applications with the Court. The question arises whether, as the Government submit, Article 2 of the Convention is applicable to the applicants’ situations.

238. The Court has already examined the Government’s objection in similar cases concerning alleged abductions by State agents and dismissed it (see, for example, Sultygov and Others, cited above, §§ 441-42, and Dzhabrailov and Others v. Russia, nos. 8620/09 and 8 others, §§ 317-18, 27 February 2014), Accordingly, the Court finds that Article 2 of the Convention applies and that the Government’s objection in this respect should be rejected.

239. Based on the above, and noting that it has already been found that in all of the applications under examination the applicants’ relatives may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State agents (see paragraph 230 above), in the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, the Court finds that the deaths of the applicants’ relatives can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ismail Makhmudov, Mr Ismail Dashtayev, Mr Vakha Nauzov, Mr Supyan Mukayev, Mr Rustam Gaysumov, Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, Mr Alikhan Satuyev, Mr Vakhab Abubakarov, Mr Lema Magomadov, Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev and Mr Islam Asukhanov.

(b) Alleged inadequacy of the investigations into the abductions

240. The Court notes the argument by the applicants in Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) that the Government failed to provide the Court with an entire copy of the investigation file. Even if this was indeed the case, the volume of the material provided by the parties in that case enables the Court to examine the issues raised in the application.

241. The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances, particularly those which occurred in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006, and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see paragraph 219 above). In the case at hand, as in many previous similar cases reviewed by the Court, the investigations have been ongoing for many years without bringing about any significant developments as regards the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the applicants’ missing relatives.

242. The Court observes that each set of criminal proceedings has been plagued by a combination of defects similar to those enumerated in the Aslakhanova and Others judgment (cited above, §§ 123‑25). Each was subjected to several decisions to suspend the investigation, followed by periods of inactivity, which further diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No timely and thorough measures have been taken to identify and question the servicemen who could have participated in the abductions.

243. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of the disappearances and deaths of Mr Ismail Makhmudov, Mr Ismail Dashtayev, Mr Vakha Nauzov, Mr Supyan Mukayev, Mr Rustam Gaysumov, Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, Mr Alikhan Satuyev, Mr Vakhab Abubakarov, Mr Lema Magomadov, Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev and Mr Islam Asukhanov. Accordingly, there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

VII. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3, 5 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

244. All the applicants complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives. They further complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. Lastly, the applicants argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had no effective domestic remedies against the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

245. In Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11), Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11), Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) and Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12), the applicants also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

246. The Articles invoked by the applicants, which read, in so far as relevant:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 5

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

...

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

A. The parties’ submissions

247. The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They stated in particular that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, particularly on account of the fact that certain applicants were minors and there was no evidence of the applicants’ relatives’ arrests by State agents. Lastly, the Government averred that the domestic legislation, including Articles 124 and 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints.

248. The applicants maintained their complaints.

B. The Court’s assessment

1. Admissibility

249. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

250. On many occasions the Court has found that a situation of enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the close relatives of a victim, irrespective of their age (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 133, and Dzhabrailov and Others, cited above, §§ 326-27).

251. Given the above findings regarding the State’s responsibility for the abductions of the applicants’ relatives and the failure to carry out meaningful investigations into the incidents (see paragraphs 243 above), the Court finds that the applicants must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of both their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.

252. The Court has found on a number of occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that the applicants’ relatives were detained by State agents, apparently in the absence of any legal grounds or acknowledgement of such detention, this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of persons enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives.

253. The Court reiterates its findings regarding the general ineffectiveness of criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the absence of the results of a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice.

254. In the light of the above, and taking into account the scope of the applicants’ complaints, the Court finds that the applicants in all cases did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

255. In addition, the applicants in Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11), Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11), Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) and Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

256. As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in the four cases mentioned above, the Court has already stated in similar cases that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention (see Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia, no. 40166/07, § 84, 26 March 2015, and Aliyev and Gadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 11059/12, § 110, 12 July 2016).

VIII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

257. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

1. Pecuniary damage

258. The applicants in all of the cases claimed compensation for loss of financial support from the breadwinners in their families.

259. The applicants in Makhmudova and Others v. Russia (no. 22983/10), Nauzova and Others v. Russia (no. 52173/11), Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11), Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11) and Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuarial Tables, using domestic subsistence levels and inflation rates. The applicants in Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia (no. 52064/11), Abubakarova and Others v. Russia (no. 46621/12) and Abdulkhalimova and Others v. Russia (no. 23115/13) based their calculations on the minimum salary in Russia and its expected growth in future. The applicants in Satuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 7214/12) and Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12) referred to the average salary in Chechnya in the field of construction, in which the abducted relatives could have worked.

260. The Government left the issue to the Court’s discretion.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

261. The amounts claimed by the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage are indicated in the appended table.

262. The Government left the issue to the Court’s discretion.

B. Costs and expenses

263. The amounts claimed by the applicants are indicated in the appended table. They asked for the awards to be transferred into the bank accounts of their representatives.

264. The Government stated that in Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) and Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12) the compensation sought by the applicants was excessive. In the rest of the cases, they left the issue to the Court’s discretion.

C. The Court’s assessment

265. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damages claimed by applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, where appropriate, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. The Court further finds that loss of earnings applies to close relatives of disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 213, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)).

266. Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation, and make a financial award.

267. As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).

268. Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, as indicated by the applicants.

D. Default interest

269. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the applications admissible;

3. Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives – Mr Ismail Makhmudov, Mr Ismail Dashtayev, Mr Vakha Nauzov, Mr Supyan Mukayev, Mr Rustam Gaysumov, Mr Khuseyn Elderkhanov, Mr Alikhan Satuyev, Mr Vakhab Abubakarov, Mr Lema Magomadov, Mr Zelimkhan Dutayev and Mr Islam Asukhanov;

4. Holds that there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure to effectively investigate the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants, on account of their mental suffering caused by their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering;

6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives, on account of their unlawful detention;

7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;

8. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11), Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11), Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) and Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12);

9. Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Mukayevy v. Russia (no. 69462/11), Chalayev and Others v. Russia (no. 73948/11), Magomadova v. Russia (no. 66877/12) and Dutayeva v. Russia (no. 71672/12);

10. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

11. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 March 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Kinship with the abducted person(s)

Abducted person(s)

Represented by

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses  

22983/10

30/03/2010

1) Ms Tamara MAKHMUDOVA

14/08/1950

Oyskhara

mother

2) Mr Umar MAKHMUDOV

28/01/1949

Grozny

father, passed away

3) Ms Medina MAKHMUDOVA

05/10/1979

Oyskhara

wife

4) Ms Aminat MAKHMUDOVA

16/04/2002

Oyskhara

daughter

5) Mr Ruslan MAKHMUDOV

28/01/1971

Oyskhara

brother

6) Mr Aslanbek MAKHMUDOV

27/06/1983

Oyskhara

brother

Mr Ismail MAKHMUDOV

SRJI/

ASTREYA

Sought by the applicants

RUB 1,087,360 (EUR 14,800) to the first, second, third, and fourth applicants each

in the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 1,624

Awarded by the Court

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the first, third, and fourth applicants each

EUR 80,000

(eighty thousand euros) to the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants jointly

EUR 1,624 (one thousand six hundred and twenty four euros)  

52064/11

29/07/2011

1) Ms Eset ISLAMOVA

27/12/1954

Novyye Atagi

mother

2) Ms Aza TSAMARAYEVA

20/01/1986

Kuropatin

sister

Mr Ismail DASHTAYEV

MATERI CHECHNI

Sought by the applicants

EUR 18,000 comprising EUR 11,200 to the first applicant and EUR 6,700 to the second applicant

(It appears that the total amount indicated (EUR 18,000) is a mistake and should read EUR 17,900)

EUR 80,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 10,947

Awarded by the Court

EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)  

52173/11

10/08/2011

1) Ms Rayman (also spelled Raiman) NAUZOVA

25/11/1950

Gudermes District

mother

2) Ms Luiza USPANOVA

26/02/1977

Nizhniy Noyber

wife

3) Ms Farida NAUZOVA

30/06/1999

Nizhniy Noyber

daughter

4) Mr Umar NAUZOV

31/01/2001

Nizhniy Noyber

son

5) Mr Ali NAUZOV

20/11/2002

Nizhniy Noyber

son

Mr Vakha NAUZOV

SRJI/

ASTREYA

Sought by the applicants

RUB 1,243,615

(EUR 16,920 to the first and second applicants each

RUB 201,340

(EUR 2,750) to the third applicant

RUB 488,943

(EUR 6,650) to the fourth applicant

RUB 821,957

(EUR 11,180) to the fifth applicant

in the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 4,712

Awarded by the Court

EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to the first and second applicants each

EUR 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred euros) to the third applicant

EUR 3,000 (thee thousand euros) to the fourth applicant

EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the fifth applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)  

69462/11

27/10/2011

1) Ms Salmatu MUKAYEVA

13/03/1950

Shali

mother, passed away

2) Mr Shaabay MUKAYEV

03/09/1969

Shali

brother

3) Mr Sultan MUKAYEV

03/06/1937

Shali

father

Mr Supyan (also spelled as Supiyan) MUKAYEV

SRJI/

ASTREYA

Sought by the applicants

RUB 890,212 (EUR 11,650) to the third applicant

in the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 4,937

Awarded by the Court

EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the third applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the second and third applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)  

73948/11

23/11/2011

1) Mr Isa CHALAYEV

27/01/1952

Alkhan-Kala

father of Mr Rustam GAYSUMOV

2) Ms Zaynap GAYSUMOVA

28/10/1956

Alkhan-Kala

mother of Mr Rustam GAYSUMOV

3) Ms Ayshat AVKHADOVA

13/01/1987

Alkhan-Kala

wife of Mr Rustam GAYSUMOV

4) Mr Seyf-Islam AVKHADOV

08/02/2006

Alkhan-Kala

son of Mr Rustam GAYSUMOV

5) Mr Adlan AVKHADOV

04/05/2007

Alkhan-Kala

son of Mr Rustam GAYSUMOV

6) Mr Sultan ELDERKHANOV

18/04/1951

Zakan-Yurt

father of Mr Khuseyn ElDERKHANOV

7) Ms Ayna ELDERKHANOVA

06/03/1956

Zakan-Yurt

mother of Mr Khuseyn ELDERKHANOV

1) Mr Rustam GAYSUMOV

2) Mr Khuseyn ELDERKHANOV

SRJI/

ASTREYA

Sought by the applicants

RUB 967,429 (EUR 12,660) to the first applicant

RUB 1,009,014 (EUR 13,210) to the second and third applicants each

RUB 451,053 (EUR 5,900) to the fourth applicant

RUB 487,214 (EUR 6,380) to the fifth applicant

RUB 1,404,497 (EUR 18,380) to the sixth applicant

RUB 1,513,522 (EUR 19,810) to the seventh applicant

in the amount to be determined by the Court to each family separately

EUR 7,643

Awarded by the Court

EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the first applicant

EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros) to the second and third applicants each

EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to the fourth and fifth applicants each

EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros) to the sixth applicant

EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the seventh applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the sixth and seventh applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)  

7214/12

11/01/2012

1) Mr Imran SATUYEV

28/03/1980

Katar-Yurt

brother

2) Ms Sadsit ELTSEBEKOVA

24/05/1955

Katar-Yurt

mother

3) Mr Zelimkhan SATUYEV

16/01/1982

Katar-Yurt

brother

4) Ms Zulikhan MADAGOVA

04/10/1986

Katar-Yurt

sister

Mr Alikhan SATUYEV

Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV

Sought by the applicants

EUR 35,200 to the second applicant

EUR 500,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 2,640

Awarded by the Court

EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros) to the second applicant

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)  

46621/12

20/07/2012

1) Ms Markha ABUBAKAROVA

05/04/1959

Argun

wife

2) Mr Yusup ABUBAKAROV

07/10/1985

Argun

son

3) Ms Khava UNAYEVA

15/02/1982

Argun

daughter

Mr Vakhab ABUBAKAROV

MATERI CHECHNI

Sought by the applicants

EUR 26,150 to the applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 8,265

Awarded by the Court

EUR 13,000 (thirteen thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)  

66877/12

11/10/2012

Ms Anisat MAGOMADOVA

21/06/1957

Grozny

mother

Mr Lema (also known as Lom-Ali; in the documents submitted also spelled as Lyoma) MAGOMADOV

SRJI/

ASTREYA

Sought by the applicant

RUB 415,839 (EUR 5,870)

in the amount to be determined by the Court

EUR 3,160

Awarded by the Court

EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros)

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros)

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)  

71672/12

17/10/2012

Ms Tamara DUTAYEVA

06/01/1949

Avtury

mother

Mr Zelimkhan DUTAYEV

Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV

Sought by the applicants

EUR 24,300

EUR 500,000

EUR 2,672

Awarded by the Court

EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros)

EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros)

EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) 

23115/13

19/02/2013

1) Ms Taisa ABDULKHALIMOVA

23/12/1970

Grozny

wife

2) Mr Sayd-Magomed ASUKHANOV

11/12/1994

Goyty

son

3) Ms Kheda ASUKHANOVA

14/06/1992

Duba-Yurt

daughter

4) Ms Iman ASUKHANOVA

02/05/1990

Goyty

daughter

Mr Islam ASUKHANOV

MATERI CHECHNI

Sought by the applicants

EUR 38,010 to the applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 to the applicants jointly

EUR 11,182

Awarded by the Court

EUR 19,000

(nineteen thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 70,000 (seventy thousand euros) to the applicants jointly

EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy